Deshpande
81 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
81 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent were unpatentable, adopting the petitioner’s claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable for obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to replace the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with new claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to replace those claims with new claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing them with claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones successfully invalidated Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, adopting broad claim constructions and rejecting Zaxcom’s arguments. Substitute claims 15‑28 were approved.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable for obviousness or anticipation, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26. The Board’s claim constructions favored the petitioner’s broader interpretations.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious or anticipated over prior art such as Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Wood, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with narrower substitute claims.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's challenge to Cortex MCP's patent was upheld by the PTAB Director Review Panel. The panel affirmed the Board's finding that the prior art (Oborne) discloses the claimed credential verification limitation.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc. successfully defended the Board's Final Written Decision in a Director Review proceeding against Cortex MCP, Inc., affirming that the challenged claims were unpatentable based on prior art Oborne.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's claims against Cortex MCP were upheld by the PTAB Director in a review of the Final Written Decision. The Board confirmed that Oborne discloses the token verification limitation central to Visa's patent.
Anand S/o Nanabhau Embadwar v.Union of India, Through Ministry of Agricultural & Farmers Welfare
This case involved a Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petition challenging the manufacturing and marketing of Soil Testing Fertilizer Recommendation (STFR) technology developed by ICAR and IARI. The petitioner, Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., sought to restrain its marketing while simultaneously benefiting from the technology. The court found the litigation frivolous and vexatious.
M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Sai Agrotech, F.M.D. (Farm Machinery Division)
M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. filed applications for review against a previous judgment that had allowed a license request for Light Trap Equipment to be rejected by NCIPM. The court reviewed the matter, considering the involvement of the review applicant in an earlier agreement with ICAR regarding the licensed technology.
Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. v.Brighto Chemical Industrial
The plaintiff, Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., sued Brighto Chemical Industrial for infringing its registered trade mark 'ODOPIC' and causing consumer confusion due to the defendant selling a similar product under the name 'magnet' with an identical label design. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted prima facie dishonest infringement of the plaintiff's trademark, rejecting the defense of delay or lack of jurisdiction.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.